(November 27, 2017 at 10:22 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence. I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it.This is an important point.
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own. In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer. A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water. A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone. However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.
I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too). However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either. I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims. I don't see any justification in making a distinction. I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.
Hypothetically, if you were to claim you had a pet dog, I would take you at your word. Plenty of people do, it is pretty commonplace.
If you claimed to have a pet zebra, that might prompt a few follow on questions since, while possible, it would be unusual.
OTOH, if you claimed to have a pet unicorn then I would require a much higher evidential bar to be set.